Cliff Rowley wrote:
On 9/1/06, Edwin van Rijkom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sure, I can see that line of reasoning. One can debate over whether
developers or customers are wrong or right on finding using open source
software unattractive, and all its pro's and con's, but I think no one
has been able to answer that question conclusively.
That's because there is no answer ;-) It's entirely down to each
individual, each client, each setup.. so many factors that deem
whether a
technology is appropriate. In my case, it's not :-)
Agreed.
If SWHX proofs to be a strong concept and gets enough helping hands to
make it evolve over time, it will become increasingly easier to 'sell it
to customers', though. So, I'm hoping that will happen.
I think it will, but as I said, I think it will happen in it's own
right -
as the SW/HX combination - not as an extension to the existing Flash/Flex
platform.
I agree that's the most likely scenario.
It wouldn't be too hard though, to code a set of Flash APIs that talk
with a fixed haXe back-end. This would result in a tool set that could
follow up Screenweaver 3 in terms of functionality, where all
application coding is done in ActionsScript. A while back I wrote down
some ideas on that at:
http://www.screenweaver.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=42&Itemid=9
(at the "Screenweaver Future" header)
I expect Adobe will be doing a very good on Apollo, though, so the
demand for such a Screenweaver version could be really low or otherwise
perhaps very short-lived.
Cheers.
Edwin
_______________________________________________
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
http://www.figleaf.com
http://training.figleaf.com
